gt; Subscriber certificates.
>
>
> Bruce.
>
> From: Validation On Behalf Of Clint Wilson
> via Validation
> Sent: Friday, September 6, 2024 2:45 PM
> To: Paul van Brouwershaven ; CA/Browser
> Forum Validation SC List
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cabf_validation] Sect
Hi Paul,
One concern I have with this change is its impact on the cross-certification of
subordinate CAs which directly issue end-entity TLS certificates. That is, I
think it appropriate to maintain the requirement/limitation that only one
Reserved Certificate Policy Identifier be included in t
gust 23, 2024 2:26 AM
> To: CABforum3 mailto:validation@cabforum.org>>
> Subject: Re: [cabf_validation] Proposed ballot on improving Registration
> Number language in EVGs
>
>
>
> On 16/8/2024 2:53 π.μ., Clint Wilson via Validation wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
Gs
>
>
>
> On 16/8/2024 2:53 π.μ., Clint Wilson via Validation wrote:
> Hi Corey,
>
> Overall this seems like a good improvement to clarity of the current
> expectations related to these sections of the EVGs, reflecting the
> predominant approach to populating
Hi Martijn,
I’ll endorse this ballot. Let me know if I can help with anything on it as well!
Cheers,
-Clint
> On Aug 22, 2024, at 12:15 AM, Martijn Katerbarg via Validation
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I won’t be able to join todays call. Still looking for endorsers for the org
> name alignment b
Hi Corey,
Overall this seems like a good improvement to clarity of the current
expectations related to these sections of the EVGs, reflecting the predominant
approach to populating the subject:serialNumber field for EV TLS certificates.
I do think it would be valuable to standardize on a date f
Hi Tim,
I had thought the point of including cabfOrganizationIdentifier was to enable
deprecation of subject:organizationIdentifier, rather than the inverse. It
seems it would be minimally appropriate to understand the discussions and/or
actions ETSI has taken post SC17 to address the topic of
